At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the west, admired its modern society, and campaigned for democracy and constitutional government in their own countries. Instead of seeing the West as their enemy, they recognized it as compatible with their own traditions. We should ask ourselves why we have lost this goodwill.
Islam, as an inherently peaceful religion, would hardly lead these children to violence by itself. It has taken the corrupting influences of American movies, militarism, and video games to pervert some branches of Islam into their current violent forms.
Once, a long time ago, I thought that maybe, by the 21st century, we, as a civilization, might have moved past the point where we like to get our rocks off by watching bloody explosions of gore in perfect digital detail.
Evidently not.
It's a well-established fact that video-game violence causes violent behavior. Yet, somehow, we're still horrified and shocked by the recent string of child abductions, by schoolyard shootings, and by the wars in the Middle East.
What? Surprised at that last item? Consider this: terrorist children, much like American children, are being raised on a nonstop diet of violence and gore, including many Hollywood movies and American video games. These influences render the children susceptible to suggestions that they commit violent acts -- even at the expense of their own lives. And it doesn't stop there: terrorists even use games such as Flight Simulator and Quake III to train themselves for the acts of violence they commit!
Please, I urge all of you: boycott this game, or risk thousands more innocent American and Israeli deaths.
I'm not happy about this, primarily because I think free Internet access is not a good thing. There are tons of reasons for this; let me just go into a few of them here.
Signal-to-noise ratio - I'm an Internet "oldster".. I was surfing the Web as far back as 1996 and can assure some of the newer members here that the Internet used to be a much more productive tool. Think about it; how much does a standard, unlimited dial-up account cost these days? $14.95? $19.95? And just who are Juno and NetZero targeting? They are going after people who cannot pony up fifteen bucks a month for legitimate Internet access. Now ask yourself: What value can these people possibly contribute to the Internet at large?
I'll tell you what: screw the Internet and just look at the microcosm that is Slashdot. Over the course of the past couple of years, this community has deteriorated from an intelligent online discussion forum to a veritable cornucopia of goat trolls and first posts. Common sense dictates that the majority of this crap is coming from uneducated, lower-class people at the very bottom of the wage scale. Juno and Netzero are dedicated to making sure that these people get Internet access. Well, you can call me elitist, but I call that bullshit.
Encouragement of the "gimme gimme gimme" entitlement mentality - Our society is rapidly moving towards a mindset where people believe, for whatever reason, that they are entitled to certain things, and Internet access is one of those things that people seem to think they have a God-given right to. I don't care if it's universal health care, retirement benefits, or Internet access.. the mentality that there are some things that should be just "given away" for free is destructive and may uproot the economies of the Western world.
Linux is another example. Don't get me wrong; I love Linux (and have three machines running it here at home.) But I use Linux because it is a reliable, powerful operating system.. not because it is free. It bothers me to see people boast about running Linux and "not having to pay one penny for software." If that's the only reason you're running Linux, perhaps you need to reconsider your priorities. Personally, I try to spend at least $100 USD on commercial software each month, just to ensure the vitality of the system. The vitality of the system is threatened by NetZero and Juno.
Lower bandwidth for legitimate users - When hundreds of NetZero/Juno customers clog up Web sites such as Slashdot or JenniCam, they are stealing bandwidth from those of us who actually pay for our Internet access. If I could be getting 5K/sec more if it weren't for freeloaders, I consider that stolen bandwidth.. bandwidth that is being hijacked from me and from the hundreds of thousands of other legitimate Internet users that get their access through more wholesome means.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I believe that it's the duty of real Internet users to oppose "free ISPs." They set a bad precedent, and they run the very real risk of screwing up a Good Thing for the rest of us.
Part of the reason that we haven't invested a lot of national effort into the space program during the past couple of decades is that there is no perceived reason to do so. The vast amount of innovation that took place during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs was primarily due to the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. If the USSR had never existed, there would never have been moon landings, because the "godless commies" would not have been our competition. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the circumstances that motivated the US political right to invest heavily in space exploration ceased to exist.
But if Canada begins to aggressively pursue space, this might change. Already, you are seeing conservative publications such as WorldNetDaily and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh lash out at Canada. If you turn on AM talk radio, you don't have to scan far to hear these people lecture their followers about the high incidence of atheism, homosexuality, feminism, Islam, etc. in our Neighbor to the North. Canada's socialist policies (and in particular, its national healthcare system) are constantly under attack from the right.
So we find ourselves coming back full-circle. A nation, that is perceived by many to have Communist leanings, is starting to pursue space exploration. Couple that with the forays that the Chinese government is making into space, and you've got a political environment that might cause people to bump up NASA's budget and make its agenda more aggressive. It's unfortunate that we have to find ourselves in situations like this before we take space exploration seriously, but I am of the opinion that if that is what it takes, then so be it. We've neglected space for way too long.. it's time to jump back into it.
Which means what, exactly? Are you claiming that schools outside of Kansas teach children that God CAN be ruled out?
Knock it off.
You're just giving the fundies ammo, and ammo is one thing that they definitely do not need. Religious fundamentalism is a sick disease of the mind, a twisted and wretched malady that represents the greatest threat to world peace that this small ball o' rock has ever known. The only problem is that militant atheism is nearly as bad.
Schools do not teach kids that there is no God, that there can be no God, and that anything supernatural is ruled out. I think you know this. So stop claiming otherwise. We don't need to rile up the fundies (it's just a shame that the most mentally ill segment of society also happens to be the most heavily armed, but that's another story.. sigh)
I see plenty of people dismissing the parent as a troll and wonder if they are being fair or not. True there has been more than the average amount of trolls written in the past couple days or so. But I think that Christian Soldier has a valid point here. The human genome is complex, yes, but I think that it is correct to say that "who we are" cannot be fully attributed to the genome. There is an awful lot of complexity to our very existences (and I'm getting a bit metaphysical here so I apologize.)
I realize that Slashdot has plenty of atheist/freethinker types. Hell, I myself am an agnostic, a lapsed Catholic actually (which would make me more hated than atheists by some branches of fundydom! But that is a different topic all together, I would say.) But I do think that those who call "Christian Soldier" a "troll" are trying to discredit his point by laughing at him and/or levying accusations at him. Screw it, even if he is a troll he has a valid point, whether he knows it or not!
If you want to discredit him then do it with facts, don't do it by throwing out names like "troll" and then walking away as if you've settled some sort of cosmic score. Because you haven't. Me, I tend to think that there are just some things that we don't know yet, and might not ever know. I don't know (or particularly care) if gods, jesuses, devils, spooks, bunnies, or fairies are behind them, but I am at least honest enough to admit they can't be ruled out. Why isn't the rest of Slashdot like this?
What am I supposed to do when your goverment, I am guessing USA, decideds that they are the "Law of the Internet"?
This brings up the pertinent question, "why is your government paying attention?" The USA is certainly not within its rights to be intervening in your country's internal affairs. If the USA oversteps its boundaries, it is your government's prerogative to ignore it. When imperialists try to dictate terms to you, it is your obligation ro resist.
When will people realise that the USA/"country of choice" is not the Internet, the whole world is, even the horrible little countries you are not allowed to export encryption to.
Complaining about the situation won't make it any better; you've got to take action if you want anyone to listen. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," as Chairman Mao said - and while it's not often wise to apply this proverb literally, the saying certainly has a lot of truth to it.
It's your ball, and you can dictate which game your going to play,
but don't be surprised when the other kids decide to play hopscotch instead.
That's all well and good, but trying to make up the rules as you go along is madness. You can't run a website (aka a business) the way you might play Calvinball. It just doesn't work.
I find this entire article vaguely amusing. Sure, you can ask your users what they want. Just don't expect it to get you anywhere.
Remember, you run this site. You can do whatever you want with it. There is absolutely no need to ask the users' permission to do anything. The servers are your property, the code was written by you, and everyone is reading this website and posting here at your sufferance.
You can't depend on the readers to run this site for you. What do us readers want? A site that's never down, with all sorts of features, that's easy to use, with responsive management, and no banners. Is that realistic? No. Are users interested in sitting down and facing harsh, ugly reality and thinking hard about these issues to the degree that's necessary to formulate even halfway decent proposals? Of course not. And it's unrealistic and dangerous to expect essentially apathetic (and very self-interested) parties to give you good advice.
In the end, the success or failure of the banner system is up to you. You can't rely on the users, and you can't blame them if you fail. But there's a ray of hope here too - you also have the freedom to ignore them.
Do you even realize how similar your anti-research, reactionary opinions are to those of dangerous cultish groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Falun Gong?
Promoting opinions that might discourage people from seeking medical treatment is reckless at best and tantamount to assault or murder at worst. I hope we can expect more responsible speech from you in the future.
I think the point is that they are not harmful. Information cant harm you.
This is ridiculous. I produce fake evidence that you are a child pornographer. You are charged with a sex offense. Information just harmed you.
My child sees racist propaganda on stormfront.org. Despite my best efforts to talk with him about this and why it's wrong, how do I know that it hasn't permanently affected him? Information just harmed him.
People post dire rumors about your company on the Internet. Stock tanks, management panics, you get fired. Information just harmed you.
And if you are harmed by a side-effect of freedom of information, then theres a wider issue that needs attention.
Such as the fact that the dissemination of this information causes such side effects. Information always has side effects.
Putting a plaster on a ruptured main artery may look better than nothing in court, but not in a hospital.
And a banana is bluer than a skunk, but only if there's no beer in Italy.
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
What about the vast business and educational opportunities that the web presents? There must surely be a way to tap this without exposing the users to harmful influences.
This is the problem that's been facing China (as in the People's Republic), where I live, and I think they've handled it nicely; managing to block most shady sites. They do, of course, also block a few places like the New York Times, but you win some, you lose some. And I don't see the NYT as that big a loss, personally.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
Go for automatic. If something important enough was wrongfully blocked, somebody will bring it to your attention so you can put it on a manual "allow" list.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
Use automatic.
the only 'possible' solution, which is/very/ inconvenient, but is implimented in some libraries/schools is to have a librarian or other staff member assist all internet access, or do it themselves, and then print out the relevant info. this is really a silly way of doing it, though.
Come to think of it, this might even be better than blocking: why don't you just make it clear that staff members will be conducting random spot checks on library patrons? One getting busted every now and again would serve to keep people in line. ("Kill the rooster to frighten the monkey," and all that.)
That would probably work much better than any blocking system, and wouldn't be such a drain on staff resources.
Here's a little tip for you: when you want to make an argument, try making sure you have a valid line of reasoning picked out. And especially make sure that it has something to do with the facts.
And here's a little question for you: which is more respectful:
1. "Let's see what's in your backpack."
2. "Don't take any of my fucking money!"
Note, also, that quote 1 is taken from before the media arrived.
Our protester here was treated with respect.
He did not treat the police with respect.
And, honestly, orange target shooting glasses? There's not much that screams "I'm here to cause violence / wreak havoc" louder than that. It's certainly probable cause.
Are you trying to say that the police shouldn't be able to do anything until AFTER someone gets shot / hurt / robbed? According to this story, this guy suffered some slight inconvenience because he looked suspicious and was uncooperative. Nothing permanent, and he certainly didn't offer any compelling reasons why this shouldn't happen, other than that the police are out to "git 'im" and therefore he's perfectly justified in convincing them that he should be arrested (acting just as someone planning something violent or destructive would) and then complaining when they arrest him while they can check and see if he's probably planning anything of the sort.
... who demonstrate why religion is such a bad thing.
But this is another example of the anti-Christian bias displayed by the technical community.
First, this is nothing compared to the anti-technical bias shown by the Christian community. The Amish have the most radical beliefs in this regard, sure, but there's an underlying anti-scientific, anti-technical, oppresive sentiment in all Christianity, and it just makes me sick to think about it.
Rather than accept the fact that we came from the Garden of Eden as told in the Bible, they would rather believe that we were created in some big explosion in space halfway across the Universe!
Which is easier to believe:
1. a big explosion started the universe
or
2. there's a big bearded guy in the sky who sends his son to get killed so that he won't have to punish all of us for what our great-great-great-great grandparents did?
I think that one's pretty obvious.
Any rational human being should be able to see this for the obvious lie that it is, since if we were created in an explosion, then how did the galaxies form?
It's called gravity. It's the same thing that holds the big ball that you're standing on together. Ever heard of it?
Oh, wait, I forgot. The Bible says the Earth is flat. Sorry.
No, whilst bacteria may be able to cross the vacuum of space this is merely another example of God's great design.
No, it's just another example of how the simplest and lowest things imaginable can always prevail. Why do you insist on putting all your mystical trappings on this sort of thing?
He is paving the way for our manifest destiny in the stars, where we shall eventually become angels ourselves and ascend to join His eternal light.
Oh. I always thought he was paving the way for religious leaders to impose their whims on the dupes who follow them. Guess I must be wrong.
To claim otherwise is to follow the bleak road to damnation.
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it. You didn't mention anything about why you thought that the author's premise that Westerns feel that freedom is taken for granted by most Westerner's, including yourself.
A full belly is more important than freedom, and I believe most people would choose the former as opposed to the latter.
Is that ok?
You have not shown 1 to be the case. Nor have you explained why 2 is correct. So your conclusion has not been shown. Please explain the following.
1.Why is invasion of not a "damn good deal of wrongdoing"? 2.What is a good deal of wrongdoing? 3.What is the definition of "acting up"? 4.Why is premise 2 correct? Why is acting up only good for for large amounts of wrongness and not small amounts.
You need to prove your premises.
Fine:
If your country isn't so screwed up that it's killing off its citizens already, then nothing you can do outside the system to correct it will bring a net benefit. Ok?
This is a non sequitur. How does this follow from his statements above?
That's the kind of stability I wasn't talking about. I was clarifying by saying that what he was describing was only what they had chosen to do with their stability. (True, I was implying that they had squandered it.)
Both you and the poster make several arguments with the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Just because most people are complacent with stability, does not justify your arugment that stability is more important than "not acting up". booker makes some of the same arugments.
Several other people have called me on this in different ways, and I've explained this elsewhere in the thread. Essentially, if you act on your impulses to set the world (or the nation) right by going outside the system, you're going to endanger plenty of your fellow citizens (who didn't ask for it) along the way.
Is this alright?
Also, as long as we're doing line-by-line critiques, I feel I should point out several unfair tactics that you used (while keeping your post entirely logical):
(a) refusing to read the subtext. If an argument of mine contained a fallacy, even if the arguments would stand without the fallacious bits, you demanded a clarification of the entire argument. (Check the bit about "... when you've got a full belly." If you actually did not draw "Most people value adequate food over freedom" from that, or don't think that most people would, then I apologize and will concede this point. Yes, it did include the ad hominem fallacy, but it seems to be that you took that as license to also ignore any underlying meaning.) (b) condescension. Compare:
Thus the rest of your argument suffers from a falicy know as petitio principii, Begging the question.
to
You're begging the question.
Or also compare:
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it.
to
This is an ad hominem attack.
In each case, the latter sentence is simple and straightforward. If I don't recognize a phrase, I can look it up. The former, in each case, takes unnecessary pains to demonstrate that you assume little enough of my education or my intelligence to explain the phrase in the verbal equivalent of baby steps.
If you want to have a dry, logical discussion, fine. But if you will not hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold me, I will seek my conversations elsewhere.
Yes, but how much respect are these people going to have in their government after whatever their issue was has been resolved? Will they have any faith whatsoever left in their officials?
If so, the nation is lucky. If not, it had better hope that it gets a leader with the resolve necessary to win back the people's trust.
I'd support them all the way even if they'd make their governments collapse totally.
And how many innocents would you starve during the ensuing chaos?
If I start telling you (assuming you're American, for sake of argument), "don't elect George W. Bush! He'll kill 40 million people through brutal purges if he takes office," will you believe me?
No matter who had the real power, these people were unjustly prosecuted by their governments for wanting to make a change. The change has been for the better and was probably ethically correct in all three instances.
Sure, these people had good intentions, but what is the road to hell paved with? While they may have wanted to do the right thing, the only end result of their actions was the undermining of the people's respect for the government. This respect is absolutely crucial to maintaining any kind of non-dysfunctional state.
Obviously, but the 'world community' cannot claim the policy is oppressing the people of the dictatorship. We're doing the excact same thing here in the good ol' west.
Dictators can often be far more reasonable than any Western government. They're usually less hypocritical, at least.
Your state (the US) used my state (the UK) as a bombing base for an illegal and immoral bombing raid on Libya, in an attempt to assassinate the legitimate ruler (You might not like the guy, but he's not your leader to complain about).
This was wrong.
The resultant escalation of revenge terrorism has endangered me personally.
I'm sorry.
Your state, the US, deposed and assassinated the legitimate leader of Chile, rendering friends of mine stateless refugees.
This was also wrong.
Just what does a state have to do before you recognise its actions as immoral ?
You've missed my point entirely. This is not the question. The question is: what does a state have to do before it is more immoral to do nothing than to put your family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens (innocents) at risk by doing something about it.
Also: I don't say that governments can do no wrong. What I do say is that states have (or should have) complete authority over their own internal affairs. It was wrong for the United States to depose the leader of Chile. It was wrong for the US to bomb Libya. It's wrong for the US to threaten economic sanctions (however staged these threats may be) against China. It's wrong for Iraq to be penalized simply because their leader happens to be Saddam Hussein.
It's been noted before in this thread, but add Martin Luther King jr. to your thinking, and it would indicate you're wrong.
The same would probably go for Nelson Mandela, Steven Biko and Mahatma Gandhi.
These people were simply figureheads for movements that represented changes caused by external pressures. (Colonialism falling out of favor, external economic pressures, international ostracism, desire not to be compared to Nazi Germany, etc.) They had no real power.
Also remember that when a 'civilized' country like GB can do it, it makes it so much easier for dictatorships to do the same.
I do not feel that life would be worth living in the type of society you could be complacent in.
Does your son also feel this way?
Don't forget the government and their social engineering, which appears to have worked on you.
Which government? As I recall, what I heard in school were a lot of nonsense quotes like, "give me liberty or give me death."
Just continue keeping your head down, swallowing injustice, avoiding conflict, and you won't even complain when they take your children away for not indoctrinating them with politically correct beliefs.
Well, no, they usually do that when you teach them to become little terrorists and pedagogues and undermine a perfectly good status quo.
Read what you wrote there. That leads to anarchy - ever heard of the rule of law?
The rule of law is exactly what I'm defending here.
Working to enforce that, and defend the original intent of your awesomely crafted constitution (for those of you in the US - Canada's constitution is a pile of garbage without even basic property rights) is what you should be doing.
I certainly try to abide by the law and make sure those around me do the same as much as I can without being an officer of it.
Otherwise, what are you really doing for your children - Gee son, I'm really sorry that you live in a totalitarian police state, but I have successfully kept my head down the last twenty years
As opposed to the alternative - "gee son, I'm sorry that I spent your entire childhood in prison for nothing and that you're under heavy suspicion for having been indoctrinated with my foolish pie-in-the-sky set of values because I tried to lead some foolish actions against a government that was doing a pretty damn good job."
You would just accept this as a part of life, and not even disagree with the police actions.
I would wonder just what these people were up to. I would not condone the police actions, but if I spoke, it would be through proper channels. There are remedies for this sort of thing, but they aren't screaming "fight the man! fuck the system!" and organizing a revolution.
Hopefully you will change your mind before they bust your door down.
Seems far more likely that they'd be coming to your door.
So are you saying that it's better to give up a little freedom and privacy, and let the Powers that Be listen to your phone calls, read your email, and go through your trash, on the off chance that some folk singer might get some people fired up to fight for a cause?
Or that some religious scholars might get some people fired up to fight for a cause and end up causing a decade of starvation and death? That couldn't possibly happen anywhere.
What is worth fighting for, and rabble-rousing, and upsetting the status quo? Or should we be complacent in the name of stability?
Any case in which the government has killed off large portions of the population. If they're not doing that, anything you could do would make things worse.
I mean, I get your point to a certain degree - stability is a very important thing. But what are you willing to give up for that?
Quite a lot, actually. And I think you can tell that the Slashdot population is predominantly young, unmarried, idealistic, and childless from their attitude towards this.
And perhaps the rougue militias won't come steal your food, but you just might "disappear."
Not if I haven't been stupid. If I do start doing stupid things, I start endangering everyone around me. And if one of my neighbors starts doing stupid things -- what right does he have to endanger me and my family?
Slashdot Mirror
Islam, as an inherently peaceful religion, would hardly lead these children to violence by itself. It has taken the corrupting influences of American movies, militarism, and video games to pervert some branches of Islam into their current violent forms.
Once, a long time ago, I thought that maybe, by the 21st century, we, as a civilization, might have moved past the point where we like to get our rocks off by watching bloody explosions of gore in perfect digital detail.
Evidently not.
It's a well-established fact that video-game violence causes violent behavior. Yet, somehow, we're still horrified and shocked by the recent string of child abductions, by schoolyard shootings, and by the wars in the Middle East.
What? Surprised at that last item? Consider this: terrorist children, much like American children, are being raised on a nonstop diet of violence and gore, including many Hollywood movies and American video games. These influences render the children susceptible to suggestions that they commit violent acts -- even at the expense of their own lives. And it doesn't stop there: terrorists even use games such as Flight Simulator and Quake III to train themselves for the acts of violence they commit!
Please, I urge all of you: boycott this game, or risk thousands more innocent American and Israeli deaths.
- Signal-to-noise ratio - I'm an Internet "oldster"
.. I was surfing the Web as far back as 1996 and can assure some of the newer members here that the Internet used to be a much more productive tool. Think about it; how much does a standard, unlimited dial-up account cost these days? $14.95? $19.95? And just who are Juno and NetZero targeting? They are going after people who cannot pony up fifteen bucks a month for legitimate Internet access. Now ask yourself: What value can these people possibly contribute to the Internet at large?
- Encouragement of the "gimme gimme gimme" entitlement mentality - Our society is rapidly moving towards a mindset where people believe, for whatever reason, that they are entitled to certain things, and Internet access is one of those things that people seem to think they have a God-given right to. I don't care if it's universal health care, retirement benefits, or Internet access
.. the mentality that there are some things that should be just "given away" for free is destructive and may uproot the economies of the Western world.
.. not because it is free. It bothers me to see people boast about running Linux and "not having to pay one penny for software." If that's the only reason you're running Linux, perhaps you need to reconsider your priorities. Personally, I try to spend at least $100 USD on commercial software each month, just to ensure the vitality of the system. The vitality of the system is threatened by NetZero and Juno.
- Lower bandwidth for legitimate users - When hundreds of NetZero/Juno customers clog up Web sites such as Slashdot or JenniCam, they are stealing bandwidth from those of us who actually pay for our Internet access. If I could be getting 5K/sec more if it weren't for freeloaders, I consider that stolen bandwidth
.. bandwidth that is being hijacked from me and from the hundreds of thousands of other legitimate Internet users that get their access through more wholesome means.
I could go on, but you get the picture. I believe that it's the duty of real Internet users to oppose "free ISPs." They set a bad precedent, and they run the very real risk of screwing up a Good Thing for the rest of us.I'll tell you what: screw the Internet and just look at the microcosm that is Slashdot. Over the course of the past couple of years, this community has deteriorated from an intelligent online discussion forum to a veritable cornucopia of goat trolls and first posts. Common sense dictates that the majority of this crap is coming from uneducated, lower-class people at the very bottom of the wage scale. Juno and Netzero are dedicated to making sure that these people get Internet access. Well, you can call me elitist, but I call that bullshit.
Linux is another example. Don't get me wrong; I love Linux (and have three machines running it here at home.) But I use Linux because it is a reliable, powerful operating system
Part of the reason that we haven't invested a lot of national effort into the space program during the past couple of decades is that there is no perceived reason to do so. The vast amount of innovation that took place during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs was primarily due to the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. If the USSR had never existed, there would never have been moon landings, because the "godless commies" would not have been our competition. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the circumstances that motivated the US political right to invest heavily in space exploration ceased to exist.
.. it's time to jump back into it.
But if Canada begins to aggressively pursue space, this might change. Already, you are seeing conservative publications such as WorldNetDaily and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh lash out at Canada. If you turn on AM talk radio, you don't have to scan far to hear these people lecture their followers about the high incidence of atheism, homosexuality, feminism, Islam, etc. in our Neighbor to the North. Canada's socialist policies (and in particular, its national healthcare system) are constantly under attack from the right.
So we find ourselves coming back full-circle. A nation, that is perceived by many to have Communist leanings, is starting to pursue space exploration. Couple that with the forays that the Chinese government is making into space, and you've got a political environment that might cause people to bump up NASA's budget and make its agenda more aggressive. It's unfortunate that we have to find ourselves in situations like this before we take space exploration seriously, but I am of the opinion that if that is what it takes, then so be it. We've neglected space for way too long
Because we didn't go to school in Kansas.
.. sigh)
Which means what, exactly? Are you claiming that schools outside of Kansas teach children that God CAN be ruled out?
Knock it off.
You're just giving the fundies ammo, and ammo is one thing that they definitely do not need. Religious fundamentalism is a sick disease of the mind, a twisted and wretched malady that represents the greatest threat to world peace that this small ball o' rock has ever known. The only problem is that militant atheism is nearly as bad.
Schools do not teach kids that there is no God, that there can be no God, and that anything supernatural is ruled out. I think you know this. So stop claiming otherwise. We don't need to rile up the fundies (it's just a shame that the most mentally ill segment of society also happens to be the most heavily armed, but that's another story
I see plenty of people dismissing the parent as a troll and wonder if they are being fair or not. True there has been more than the average amount of trolls written in the past couple days or so. But I think that Christian Soldier has a valid point here. The human genome is complex, yes, but I think that it is correct to say that "who we are" cannot be fully attributed to the genome. There is an awful lot of complexity to our very existences (and I'm getting a bit metaphysical here so I apologize.)
I realize that Slashdot has plenty of atheist/freethinker types. Hell, I myself am an agnostic, a lapsed Catholic actually (which would make me more hated than atheists by some branches of fundydom! But that is a different topic all together, I would say.) But I do think that those who call "Christian Soldier" a "troll" are trying to discredit his point by laughing at him and/or levying accusations at him. Screw it, even if he is a troll he has a valid point, whether he knows it or not!
If you want to discredit him then do it with facts, don't do it by throwing out names like "troll" and then walking away as if you've settled some sort of cosmic score. Because you haven't. Me, I tend to think that there are just some things that we don't know yet, and might not ever know. I don't know (or particularly care) if gods, jesuses, devils, spooks, bunnies, or fairies are behind them, but I am at least honest enough to admit they can't be ruled out. Why isn't the rest of Slashdot like this?
What am I supposed to do when your goverment, I am guessing USA, decideds that they are the "Law of the Internet"?
This brings up the pertinent question, "why is your government paying attention?" The USA is certainly not within its rights to be intervening in your country's internal affairs. If the USA oversteps its boundaries, it is your government's prerogative to ignore it. When imperialists try to dictate terms to you, it is your obligation ro resist.
When will people realise that the USA/"country of choice" is not the Internet, the whole world is, even the horrible little countries you are not allowed to export encryption to.
Complaining about the situation won't make it any better; you've got to take action if you want anyone to listen. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," as Chairman Mao said - and while it's not often wise to apply this proverb literally, the saying certainly has a lot of truth to it.
If it came about, I think I'd load up on weapons, and become an anti-organisation vigelante.
So you'd become an armed sociopathic criminal. But a really self-righteous one, so it's all ok.
(Note: sarcasm.)
Take down all of the current senior managers who have Hitler complexes, before they can start controlling people and resources again.
So you'd try and break the influence of a small proportion of people who you see as the cause of all the world's ills by killing them.
Would you remind me just who has the Hitler complex here?
It's your ball, and you can dictate which game your going to play,
but don't be surprised when the other kids decide to play hopscotch instead.
That's all well and good, but trying to make up the rules as you go along is madness. You can't run a website (aka a business) the way you might play Calvinball. It just doesn't work.
I find this entire article vaguely amusing. Sure, you can ask your users what they want. Just don't expect it to get you anywhere.
Remember, you run this site. You can do whatever you want with it. There is absolutely no need to ask the users' permission to do anything. The servers are your property, the code was written by you, and everyone is reading this website and posting here at your sufferance.
You can't depend on the readers to run this site for you. What do us readers want? A site that's never down, with all sorts of features, that's easy to use, with responsive management, and no banners. Is that realistic? No. Are users interested in sitting down and facing harsh, ugly reality and thinking hard about these issues to the degree that's necessary to formulate even halfway decent proposals? Of course not. And it's unrealistic and dangerous to expect essentially apathetic (and very self-interested) parties to give you good advice.
In the end, the success or failure of the banner system is up to you. You can't rely on the users, and you can't blame them if you fail. But there's a ray of hope here too - you also have the freedom to ignore them.
I hope this is in some way helpful to you.
Do you even realize how similar your anti-research, reactionary opinions are to those of dangerous cultish groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Falun Gong?
Promoting opinions that might discourage people from seeking medical treatment is reckless at best and tantamount to assault or murder at worst. I hope we can expect more responsible speech from you in the future.
I think the point is that they are not harmful. Information cant harm you.
This is ridiculous. I produce fake evidence that you are a child pornographer. You are charged with a sex offense. Information just harmed you.
My child sees racist propaganda on stormfront.org. Despite my best efforts to talk with him about this and why it's wrong, how do I know that it hasn't permanently affected him? Information just harmed him.
People post dire rumors about your company on the Internet. Stock tanks, management panics, you get fired. Information just harmed you.
And if you are harmed by a side-effect of freedom of information, then theres a wider issue that needs attention.
Such as the fact that the dissemination of this information causes such side effects. Information always has side effects.
Putting a plaster on a ruptured main artery may look better than nothing in court, but not in a hospital.
And a banana is bluer than a skunk, but only if there's no beer in Italy.
In short: explain, please.
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
/very/ inconvenient, but is implimented in some libraries/schools is to have a librarian or other staff member assist all internet access, or do it themselves, and then print out the relevant info. this is really a silly way of doing it, though.
What about the vast business and educational opportunities that the web presents? There must surely be a way to tap this without exposing the users to harmful influences.
This is the problem that's been facing China (as in the People's Republic), where I live, and I think they've handled it nicely; managing to block most shady sites. They do, of course, also block a few places like the New York Times, but you win some, you lose some. And I don't see the NYT as that big a loss, personally.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
Go for automatic. If something important enough was wrongfully blocked, somebody will bring it to your attention so you can put it on a manual "allow" list.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
Use automatic.
the only 'possible' solution, which is
Come to think of it, this might even be better than blocking: why don't you just make it clear that staff members will be conducting random spot checks on library patrons? One getting busted every now and again would serve to keep people in line. ("Kill the rooster to frighten the monkey," and all that.)
That would probably work much better than any blocking system, and wouldn't be such a drain on staff resources.
Here's a little tip for you: when you want to make an argument, try making sure you have a valid line of reasoning picked out. And especially make sure that it has something to do with the facts.
And here's a little question for you: which is more respectful:
1. "Let's see what's in your backpack."
2. "Don't take any of my fucking money!"
Note, also, that quote 1 is taken from before the media arrived.
Our protester here was treated with respect.
He did not treat the police with respect.
And, honestly, orange target shooting glasses? There's not much that screams "I'm here to cause violence / wreak havoc" louder than that. It's certainly probable cause.
Are you trying to say that the police shouldn't be able to do anything until AFTER someone gets shot / hurt / robbed? According to this story, this guy suffered some slight inconvenience because he looked suspicious and was uncooperative. Nothing permanent, and he certainly didn't offer any compelling reasons why this shouldn't happen, other than that the police are out to "git 'im" and therefore he's perfectly justified in convincing them that he should be arrested (acting just as someone planning something violent or destructive would) and then complaining when they arrest him while they can check and see if he's probably planning anything of the sort.
... who demonstrate why religion is such a bad thing.
But this is another example of the anti-Christian bias displayed by the technical community.
First, this is nothing compared to the anti-technical bias shown by the Christian community. The Amish have the most radical beliefs in this regard, sure, but there's an underlying anti-scientific, anti-technical, oppresive sentiment in all Christianity, and it just makes me sick to think about it.
Rather than accept the fact that we came from the Garden of Eden as told in the Bible, they would rather believe that we were created in some big explosion in space halfway across the Universe!
Which is easier to believe:
1. a big explosion started the universe
or
2. there's a big bearded guy in the sky who sends his son to get killed so that he won't have to punish all of us for what our great-great-great-great grandparents did?
I think that one's pretty obvious.
Any rational human being should be able to see this for the obvious lie that it is, since if we were created in an explosion, then how did the galaxies form?
It's called gravity. It's the same thing that holds the big ball that you're standing on together. Ever heard of it?
Oh, wait, I forgot. The Bible says the Earth is flat. Sorry.
No, whilst bacteria may be able to cross the vacuum of space this is merely another example of God's great design.
No, it's just another example of how the simplest and lowest things imaginable can always prevail. Why do you insist on putting all your mystical trappings on this sort of thing?
He is paving the way for our manifest destiny in the stars, where we shall eventually become angels ourselves and ascend to join His eternal light.
Oh. I always thought he was paving the way for religious leaders to impose their whims on the dupes who follow them. Guess I must be wrong.
To claim otherwise is to follow the bleak road to damnation.
Time to wake up and smell the reality, buddy.
Wonderful. But the country's doing well. I'd rather have corrupt leaders leading a well-off country than a saint leading a starving one.
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it. You didn't mention anything about why you thought that the author's premise that Westerns feel that freedom is taken for granted by most Westerner's, including yourself.
A full belly is more important than freedom, and I believe most people would choose the former as opposed to the latter.
Is that ok?
You have not shown 1 to be the case. Nor have you explained why 2 is correct. So your conclusion has not been shown. Please explain the following.
1.Why is invasion of not a "damn good deal of wrongdoing"?
2.What is a good deal of wrongdoing?
3.What is the definition of "acting up"?
4.Why is premise 2 correct? Why is acting up only good for for large amounts of wrongness and not small amounts.
You need to prove your premises.
Fine:
If your country isn't so screwed up that it's killing off its citizens already, then nothing you can do outside the system to correct it will bring a net benefit. Ok?
This is a non sequitur. How does this follow from his statements above?
That's the kind of stability I wasn't talking about. I was clarifying by saying that what he was describing was only what they had chosen to do with their stability. (True, I was implying that they had squandered it.)
Both you and the poster make several arguments with the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. Just because most people are complacent with stability, does not justify your arugment that stability is more important than "not acting up". booker makes some of the same arugments.
Several other people have called me on this in different ways, and I've explained this elsewhere in the thread. Essentially, if you act on your impulses to set the world (or the nation) right by going outside the system, you're going to endanger plenty of your fellow citizens (who didn't ask for it) along the way.
Is this alright?
Also, as long as we're doing line-by-line critiques, I feel I should point out several unfair tactics that you used (while keeping your post entirely logical):
(a) refusing to read the subtext. If an argument of mine contained a fallacy, even if the arguments would stand without the fallacious bits, you demanded a clarification of the entire argument. (Check the bit about "... when you've got a full belly." If you actually did not draw "Most people value adequate food over freedom" from that, or don't think that most people would, then I apologize and will concede this point. Yes, it did include the ad hominem fallacy, but it seems to be that you took that as license to also ignore any underlying meaning.)
(b) condescension. Compare:
Thus the rest of your argument suffers from a falicy know as petitio principii, Begging the question.
to
You're begging the question.
Or also compare:
There is this thing in logic called an Ad Hominem fallacy. You just used it.
to
This is an ad hominem attack.
In each case, the latter sentence is simple and straightforward. If I don't recognize a phrase, I can look it up. The former, in each case, takes unnecessary pains to demonstrate that you assume little enough of my education or my intelligence to explain the phrase in the verbal equivalent of baby steps.
If you want to have a dry, logical discussion, fine. But if you will not hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold me, I will seek my conversations elsewhere.
Singapore.
Yes, but how much respect are these people going to have in their government after whatever their issue was has been resolved? Will they have any faith whatsoever left in their officials?
If so, the nation is lucky. If not, it had better hope that it gets a leader with the resolve necessary to win back the people's trust.
I'd support them all the way even if they'd make their governments collapse totally.
And how many innocents would you starve during the ensuing chaos?
So, tell me:
If I start telling you (assuming you're American, for sake of argument), "don't elect George W. Bush! He'll kill 40 million people through brutal purges if he takes office," will you believe me?
No matter who had the real power, these people were unjustly prosecuted by their governments for wanting to make a change. The change has been for the better and was probably ethically correct in all three instances.
Sure, these people had good intentions, but what is the road to hell paved with? While they may have wanted to do the right thing, the only end result of their actions was the undermining of the people's respect for the government. This respect is absolutely crucial to maintaining any kind of non-dysfunctional state.
Obviously, but the 'world community' cannot claim the policy is oppressing the people of the dictatorship. We're doing the excact same thing here in the good ol' west.
Dictators can often be far more reasonable than any Western government. They're usually less hypocritical, at least.
Your state (the US) used my state (the UK) as a bombing base for an illegal and immoral bombing raid on Libya, in an attempt to assassinate the legitimate ruler (You might not like the guy, but he's not your leader to complain about).
This was wrong.
The resultant escalation of revenge terrorism has endangered me personally.
I'm sorry.
Your state, the US, deposed and assassinated the legitimate leader of Chile, rendering friends of mine stateless refugees.
This was also wrong.
Just what does a state have to do before you recognise its actions as immoral ?
You've missed my point entirely. This is not the question. The question is: what does a state have to do before it is more immoral to do nothing than to put your family, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens (innocents) at risk by doing something about it.
Also: I don't say that governments can do no wrong. What I do say is that states have (or should have) complete authority over their own internal affairs. It was wrong for the United States to depose the leader of Chile. It was wrong for the US to bomb Libya. It's wrong for the US to threaten economic sanctions (however staged these threats may be) against China. It's wrong for Iraq to be penalized simply because their leader happens to be Saddam Hussein.
I think we actually agree, for the most part.
It's been noted before in this thread, but add Martin Luther King jr. to your thinking, and it would indicate you're wrong.
The same would probably go for Nelson Mandela, Steven Biko and Mahatma Gandhi.
These people were simply figureheads for movements that represented changes caused by external pressures. (Colonialism falling out of favor, external economic pressures, international ostracism, desire not to be compared to Nazi Germany, etc.) They had no real power.
Also remember that when a 'civilized' country like GB can do it, it makes it so much easier for dictatorships to do the same.
The dictatorships would be doing it anyway.
I do not feel that life would be worth living in the type of society you could be complacent in.
Does your son also feel this way?
Don't forget the government and their social engineering, which appears to have worked on you.
Which government? As I recall, what I heard in school were a lot of nonsense quotes like, "give me liberty or give me death."
Just continue keeping your head down, swallowing injustice, avoiding conflict, and you won't even complain when they take your children away for not indoctrinating them with politically correct beliefs.
Well, no, they usually do that when you teach them to become little terrorists and pedagogues and undermine a perfectly good status quo.
Read what you wrote there. That leads to anarchy - ever heard of the rule of law?
The rule of law is exactly what I'm defending here.
Working to enforce that, and defend the original intent of your awesomely crafted constitution (for those of you in the US - Canada's constitution is a pile of garbage without even basic property rights) is what you should be doing.
I certainly try to abide by the law and make sure those around me do the same as much as I can without being an officer of it.
Otherwise, what are you really doing for your children - Gee son, I'm really sorry that you live in a totalitarian police state, but I have successfully kept my head down the last twenty years
As opposed to the alternative - "gee son, I'm sorry that I spent your entire childhood in prison for nothing and that you're under heavy suspicion for having been indoctrinated with my foolish pie-in-the-sky set of values because I tried to lead some foolish actions against a government that was doing a pretty damn good job."
You would just accept this as a part of life, and not even disagree with the police actions.
I would wonder just what these people were up to. I would not condone the police actions, but if I spoke, it would be through proper channels. There are remedies for this sort of thing, but they aren't screaming "fight the man! fuck the system!" and organizing a revolution.
Hopefully you will change your mind before they bust your door down.
Seems far more likely that they'd be coming to your door.
So are you saying that it's better to give up a little freedom and privacy, and let the Powers that Be listen to your phone calls, read your email, and go through your trash, on the off chance that some folk singer might get some people fired up to fight for a cause?
Or that some religious scholars might get some people fired up to fight for a cause and end up causing a decade of starvation and death? That couldn't possibly happen anywhere.
What is worth fighting for, and rabble-rousing, and upsetting the status quo? Or should we be complacent in the name of stability?
Any case in which the government has killed off large portions of the population. If they're not doing that, anything you could do would make things worse.
I mean, I get your point to a certain degree - stability is a very important thing. But what are you willing to give up for that?
Quite a lot, actually. And I think you can tell that the Slashdot population is predominantly young, unmarried, idealistic, and childless from their attitude towards this.
And perhaps the rougue militias won't come steal your food, but you just might "disappear."
Not if I haven't been stupid. If I do start doing stupid things, I start endangering everyone around me. And if one of my neighbors starts doing stupid things -- what right does he have to endanger me and my family?